Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Structured, local interactions between AI-assisted cyber agents can make secure defensive behavior the dominant evolutionary outcome, while global mixing leaves attacks and defenses coexisting.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 02:03 UTC pith:QRJWGLQ4

load-bearing objection A plausible but unverified network-reciprocity result for a new mixed-role cyber game; the printed payoff matrix is internally inconsistent and the structured-vs-well-mixed comparison is confounded, so the central claim is not yet established. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25568 v1 pith:QRJWGLQ4 submitted 2026-07-28 cs.GT

Network Reciprocity Shapes Evolutionary Cybersecurity Dynamics

Adeela Bashir , Zia Ush Shamszaman , Zhao Song , The Anh Han This is my paper
classification cs.GT MSC 91A2291A43
keywords evolutionary game theorynetwork reciprocitycybersecurityAI-assisted defensemixed-role gamestructured populationsattack suppressionagent-based simulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper tries to establish that the way AI-assisted cyber agents are connected—globally mixed versus locally networked—changes whether persistent attacks or secure defense win in the long run. The authors build an evolutionary game in which each agent can both attack and defend, producing four strategies: active defense, defensive-only, offensive-only, and passive. In a well-mixed population, attacking and defensive strategies coexist over broad parameter ranges. When the same game runs on a square lattice, the defensive-only strategy dominates a much larger region of parameter space because neighboring defenders reinforce each other and form clusters that repel attackers. If correct, this means cybersecurity resilience can be improved by organizing defenders through local network interactions, without adding new incentives.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that population structure alters the evolutionary outcome of a mixed-role cyber attack-defense game. Agents using four strategies—(A,D), (A,ND), (NA,D), (NA,ND)—interact either in a well-mixed finite population, analyzed through a finite-population birth-death process in the small-mutation limit, or on a 100x100 square lattice with nearest-neighbor interactions and asynchronous payoff-based imitation. In the well-mixed case, stationary strategy frequencies shift smoothly and coexist broadly as attack cost and defense effectiveness vary. In the structured case, the same parameter space splits into well-defined regimes, with (NA,D) prevailing

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is network reciprocity on a square lattice: when defenders are spatial neighbors, they repeatedly interact and collect mutual defensive benefits, so a cluster of (NA,D) players earns higher payoffs than isolated attackers and resists invasion. The supporting machinery is a four-strategy mixed-role payoff matrix that averages each pairwise interaction over offense and defense roles, a small-mutation stationary-distribution analysis for the well-mixed case, and large-scale agent-based simulations with asynchronous payoff-based imitation on the lattice. The analytical anchor is the threshold p_d > 1 - c_a/b_a for attack suppression.

Load-bearing premise

The central comparison implicitly assumes that all differences between the well-mixed and structured results come from interaction structure; if the sharper transitions on the lattice are instead caused by the larger population or the asynchronous update rule used there, the main claim about network reciprocity fails.

What would settle it

Run the structured model with the same 100-agent population and update schedule as the well-mixed case, or run a 10,000-agent well-mixed population with asynchronous updates. If the sharp phase boundaries and the expanded (NA,D) region disappear when only population size or update timing changes, then the effect is not due to network reciprocity.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Under local lattice interactions, the secure defensive strategy (NA,D) takes over a larger region of the attack-cost/defense-effectiveness parameter space than it does under global mixing.
  • Defensive clusters emerge spontaneously from local reinforcement and suppress persistent attackers without any extra payoff incentive for defense.
  • Raising attack cost c_a or defense effectiveness p_d is the dominant lever; changing asset value, defense cost, or defender benefit has a smaller long-run effect.
  • The same analytical boundary that marks when attacking is unprofitable (p_d > 1 - c_a/b_a) organizes the phase transitions seen in simulations.
  • Organizing AI-assisted defense as locally connected, mutually reinforcing agents can improve long-term cyber resilience.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The well-mixed and lattice simulations are not perfectly controlled: the well-mixed case uses 100 agents with a birth-death update process, while the lattice uses 10,000 agents with asynchronous updates. Some of the sharpening in the structured results could come from population size or update timing rather than from spatial structure alone.
  • If local reciprocity is the real driver, then deliberately grouping defenders in enterprise networks or threat-intelligence-sharing neighborhoods should produce the same effect—a testable design implication the paper does not run.
  • The mixed-role assumption—that every agent experiences both the attacker and defender role with equal weight—smooths out role asymmetries common in real cyber systems; a variant with fixed roles might shrink the network-reciprocity advantage.
  • The square lattice is a topology highly favorable to reciprocity; on scale-free or small-world networks, the size of the defense-dominated region and the sharpness of transitions could differ substantially, as the paper itself notes in its future-work section.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies an evolutionary game in which each cyber agent chooses an attacking action (A or NA) and a defensive action (D or ND), yielding four mixed-role strategies. The mixed-role payoff is defined as the average of the payoff obtained in the attacker role and the payoff obtained in the defender role. The authors analyze the resulting four-strategy game in a well-mixed finite population using Moran-type fixation probabilities and a small-mutation Markov chain, and in a structured population using a 100x100 square lattice with asynchronous Fermi updates. The central claim is that local interaction structure fundamentally changes the outcome: whereas well-mixed populations show broad coexistence and smooth transitions, structured populations exhibit sharp evolutionary regimes in which the secure defensive-only strategy (NA,D) dominates over a much larger parameter region. Spatial snapshots are used to argue that neighboring defenders form clusters that suppress attacks through network reciprocity. The paper concludes that organizing cyber defense through local networked interactions can improve resilience without additional incentives.

Significance. If established, the result would be a useful contribution to evolutionary cybersecurity: it transfers a well-known mechanism from evolutionary game theory (network reciprocity) to a practically relevant domain and makes a concrete, falsifiable prediction that interaction structure can substitute for stronger defensive incentives. The paper is also commendable for combining analytical Markov-chain methods with agent-based simulation, and for deriving its attack-suppression condition from the payoff structure rather than fitting parameters to data. However, the central result is not yet established. The printed mixed-role payoff matrix is inconsistent with the stated definition, and the well-mixed versus structured comparison changes population size and update rules alongside interaction structure. These issues must be resolved before the paper's main claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Table 3 and Eq. (2)] Table 3 does not follow from the definition in Eq. (2) and the payoffs in Table 1. For example, Eq. (2) gives Pi((A,D),(NA,D)) = 1/2[pi(A,D)+pi(D,NA)] = 1/2[(-c_a+b_a(1-p_d))+(-c_d+b_d)], while Pi((A,ND),(NA,D)) = 1/2[pi(A,D)+pi(ND,NA)] = 1/2[(-c_a+b_a(1-p_d))]. These two entries are printed identically in Table 3. Likewise, Eq. (2) gives Pi((NA,D),(NA,ND)) = 1/2(-c_d+b_d), which is positive under Table 2 constraints, yet Table 3 prints 0. As printed, the row player's defensive choice is payoff-irrelevant, contradicting the game's definition. Since the Moran average payoffs and the lattice simulations use 'the mixed-role payoff matrix in Table 3' (Sections 3.1 and 4.3), Figures 2-8 may simulate a different game from the one defined. Please provide a corrected Table 3 and state explicitly whether the simulations used the corrected payoffs or the printed ones. If the printed matrix was use
  2. [Sections 3.1-3.2, 4.3-4.5, Figures 5-6] The comparison between well-mixed and structured populations changes more than interaction structure. The well-mixed results in Figure 5 are obtained from the finite-population Markov model with M=100 in the small-mutation limit, while the structured results in Figure 6 use a 100x100 lattice (N=10,000) with asynchronous Fermi updates and mu=10^-5. Population size and update schedule can by themselves sharpen phase transitions and alter fixation dynamics. To support the central claim that the sharp regimes in Figure 6 are due to network reciprocity, the authors should run a well-mixed baseline at the same population size with the same asynchronous update rule and mutation rate, or at least show that the broad-coexistence pattern in the well-mixed model is stable as M increases to 10,000. Without such a control, the difference between Figures 5 and 6 is confounded.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (1); Section 4.5] Eq. (1) is derived from a single interaction between an attacker and a defended opponent. It does not by itself imply that attacking is evolutionarily unattractive in the population: against an undefended target an attack yields -c_a+b_a>0, so in a mixed population attacks may still be profitable. The text in Section 4.5 says that population structure does not alter 'the boundary condition itself' and uses Eq. (1) to interpret the phase transitions. This overstates the analytical content. Please either derive a population-level attack-suppression condition (for example, from pairwise invasion conditions of the mixed-role game) or explicitly label Eq. (1) as only a local profitability condition for attacks against defended agents.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2 and Figures 2-3] Table 2 states the constraint b_d <= w, but Figure 2(c)-(d) and the corresponding panels in Figure 3 use b_d=1.2 with w=1.0. Please adjust either the stated constraints or the parameter values.
  2. [Section 3, Table 3] The superscript/subscript notation in Table 3 (pi^D_A, pi^A_D, etc.) is not defined in the text. If a corrected table is provided, please define the notation explicitly or write the entries as explicit functions of the parameters.
  3. [Throughout] The paper contains a number of typographical and wording issues, for example 'evey' in Section 3.1, a stray semicolon in the Figure 2 caption ('p_d = 0.8;,'), and an incomplete phrase in the Figure 4 caption ('while all remaining parameters are c_a = ...'). These should be corrected.
  4. [Section 4.3 and Reproducibility] No code or data repository is mentioned. Given the Table 3 inconsistency, providing the simulation code or detailed pseudocode is essential for verifying which payoff matrix was actually used.
  5. [Section 4.6] The defensive-clustering mechanism is supported only by visual snapshots (Figures 7-8). A quantitative measure such as cluster-size distributions, boundary densities, or a comparison against a null model would make the network-reciprocity interpretation more robust.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation; self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Eq. (1) is rearranged algebraically from the attacker payoff π^D_A = -c_a + b_a(1-p_d) defined in Table 1; no parameter is fitted and no external result is needed. The Markov-chain fixation probabilities, Fermi update, and lattice simulations are standard outputs of the stated model. The key 'prediction' that structured populations enlarge the (NA,D) region is an emergent simulation result, not a quantity tuned to a target; no calibration against data occurs anywhere. Self-citations [4,14,23,32,37] support background claims about AI cybersecurity and cooperation, but the network-reciprocity mechanism is also supported by external classics [22,33,34,35,38,39], so none of the self-citations is load-bearing. There is no imported uniqueness theorem or ansatz-sneaking. The main risks flagged by a skeptical reader—possible internal inconsistency in Table 3 and the well-mixed/structured difference in population size and update rule—are correctness/experimental-design concerns, not circularity: even if the simulations evaluated a differently specified matrix, the output would still be a direct consequence of that specified model, not a restatement of the input. Therefore no step in the claimed derivation reduces to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-set payoff parameters (six game parameters plus β and µ) and on standard-but-unjustified EGT assumptions (Moran/Fermi dynamics, small-mutation limit, lattice topology, equal role weighting). The well-mixed and structured analyses also use different population sizes and update rules, a free choice that directly affects the comparison. No new entities are invented.

free parameters (9)
  • w (asset value) = 1.0 (varied over [0,1])
    Value of the defender's assets; hand-set model input that scales losses and defender benefits.
  • c_a (attack cost) = 0.2–0.8 in figures
    Cost of launching an attack; key sensitivity parameter in Eq. (1); chosen by hand.
  • b_a (attacker benefit) = 0.7–1.0 in figures
    Benefit from a successful attack; hand-set; critical in attack-suppression threshold.
  • c_d (defence cost) = 0.2–0.5 in figures
    Cost of deploying defence; hand-set.
  • b_d (defender benefit) = 0.8–1.2 in figures
    Benefit to defender for not being breached; hand-set.
  • p_d (defence effectiveness) = 0.2–0.9 in figures
    Probability a defence blocks an attack; key sensitivity parameter in Eq. (1); hand-set.
  • β (selection intensity) = 0.1 (1.0 in Figures 3–4)
    Strength of payoff-dependent imitation; hand-set; affects the sharpness of transitions.
  • µ (mutation probability) = 10⁻⁵
    Rate of random strategy innovation in simulations; hand-set.
  • Population sizes (M=100; L=100) = 100 agents vs 100×100 lattice
    Chosen by hand; the mismatch between the two frameworks is a methodological confound for the central comparison.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The Moran process with Fermi update rule (Eq. 2) captures how cyber agents imitate strategies.
    Standard EGT assumption, adopted without justification for AI-assisted cyber agents (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Small-mutation limit (µ→0) allows the dynamics to be reduced to a Markov chain over homogeneous states.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 to compute fixation probabilities and stationary distribution.
  • ad hoc to paper A square lattice with periodic boundaries and four nearest neighbours represents relevant cyber interaction structure.
    Section 3.2 asserts this reflects connected infrastructure, but no empirical support is given; results depend on this topology.
  • ad hoc to paper Averaging payoffs over attacker and defender roles (1/2 sum) represents mixed-role cyber agents.
    Modeling choice in Section 3; the equal weighting of roles is arbitrary.
  • domain assumption Payoff entries in Table 1 (costs, benefits, loss, block probability) correctly encode AI-assisted cyber attack/defence.
    The entire analysis rests on this payoff structure; it is presented as the model without empirical calibration.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12014 in / 22708 out tokens · 195857 ms · 2026-08-01T02:03:52.084047+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

AI-assisted cybersecurity systems are characterised by continuous adaptation between attackers and defenders, making evolutionary game theory a natural framework for studying their long-term behaviour. However, existing evolutionary cybersecurity models have primarily focused on homogeneous interactions, providing limited understanding of how population structure influences cyber attack-defence dynamics. In this paper, we develop a mixed-role evolutionary game in which adaptive cyber agents can exhibit both offensive and defensive behaviours, and investigate its dynamics in well-mixed and structured populations. The proposed framework combines stochastic evolutionary analysis with large-scale agent-based simulations to examine how interaction structure shapes long-run strategic behaviour. Our results reveal a fundamental difference between global and local interactions. While well-mixed populations exhibit broad coexistence between attacking and defensive strategies, structured populations generate well-defined evolutionary regimes in which secure defensive behaviour becomes dominant over a much larger region of the parameter space. Spatial analysis further shows that neighbouring defenders naturally form resilient clusters that suppress persistent attacks through network reciprocity. These findings demonstrate that interaction structure is a fundamental determinant of AI-assisted cybersecurity evolution and suggest that organising defensive agents through local networked interactions can substantially improve long-term cyber resilience without requiring additional defensive incentives.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25568 by Adeela Bashir, The Anh Han, Zhao Song, Zia Ush Shamszaman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Conceptual overview of the proposed framework where attacks and defence mechanisms interact within a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Stationary frequencies of AI-assisted cyber attack-defence strategies as functions of the selection intensity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Embedded four-state Markov chains corresponding to the cybersecurity environments shown in Figure 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Parameter sensitivity analysis of the stochastic AI-assisted cyber attack-defence model. Each parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Heatmaps of stationary strategy frequencies in the well-mixed AI-assisted cyber attack-defence model as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Heatmaps of stationary strategy frequencies in the structured AI-assisted cyber attack-defence model as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spatial evolution of AI-assisted cyber attack-defence strategies for different attack costs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spatial evolution of AI-assisted cyber attack–defence strategies for different AI-assisted defence effectiveness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Ai-driven cyber attacks and defensive countermeasures.Multidisciplinary Studies and Innovative Research, 5(2):16–30, 2024

    Adeyemi Akinyemi. Ai-driven cyber attacks and defensive countermeasures.Multidisciplinary Studies and Innovative Research, 5(2):16–30, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    The emerging threat of ai-driven cyber attacks: A review.Applied Artificial Intelligence, 36(1):2037254, 2022

    Blessing Guembe, Ambrose Azeta, Sanjay Misra, Victor Chukwudi Osamor, Luis Fernandez-Sanz, and Vera Pospelova. The emerging threat of ai-driven cyber attacks: A review.Applied Artificial Intelligence, 36(1):2037254, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Prioritization of risks from artificial intelligence: A delphi study of 272 international experts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.04490, 2026

    Alexander K Saeri, Jess Graham, Michael Noetel, Peter Slattery, Dennis Ah-King, Edla Aittokallio, Ibitola Akindehin, Abbas Al Mahdi, Elie Alhajjar, Rafael Andersson Lipcsey, et al. Prioritization of risks from artificial intelligence: A delphi study of 272 international experts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.04490, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Co-evolutionary dynamics of attack and defence in cybersecurity.Knowledge-Based Systems, page 115750, 2026

    Adeela Bashir, Zia Ush Shamszaman, Zhao Song, and The Anh Han. Co-evolutionary dynamics of attack and defence in cybersecurity.Knowledge-Based Systems, page 115750, 2026

    2026

  5. [5]

    Mathematical modeling of decision making: a soft and fuzzy approach to capturing hard decisions.Human Factors, 45(1):117–135, 2003

    David W Dorsey and Michael D Coovert. Mathematical modeling of decision making: a soft and fuzzy approach to capturing hard decisions.Human Factors, 45(1):117–135, 2003

    2003

  6. [6]

    Exploring game theoretic applications in cyber security

    Rakesh Verma, Saroj Koul, KV Ajaygopal, and Sudhanshu Singh. Exploring game theoretic applications in cyber security. In2024 International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Cybersecurity (ISCS), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    A concept for strategic cyber defense

    Walt Tirenin and Don Faatz. A concept for strategic cyber defense. InMILCOM 1999. IEEE Military Communications. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No. 99CH36341), volume 1, pages 458–463. IEEE, 1999

    1999

  8. [8]

    Cambridge university press, 1998

    Josef Hofbauer and Karl Sigmund.Evolutionary games and population dynamics. Cambridge university press, 1998. 13

    1998

  9. [9]

    The logic of animal conflict.Nature, 246(5427):15–18, 1973

    J Maynard Smith and George R Price. The logic of animal conflict.Nature, 246(5427):15–18, 1973

    1973

  10. [10]

    Princeton University Press, 2010

    Karl Sigmund.The calculus of selfishness. Princeton University Press, 2010

    2010

  11. [11]

    Detecting unknown cyber security attacks through system behavior analysis

    Florian Skopik, Markus Wurzenberger, and Max Landauer. Detecting unknown cyber security attacks through system behavior analysis. InCybersecurity of Digital Service Chains: Challenges, Methodolo- gies, and Tools, pages 103–119. Springer, 2022

    2022

  12. [12]

    Game theory for cyber security and privacy.ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 50(2):1–37, 2017

    Cuong T Do, Nguyen H Tran, Choongseon Hong, Charles A Kamhoua, Kevin A Kwiat, Erik Blasch, Shaolei Ren, Niki Pissinou, and Sundaraja Sitharama Iyengar. Game theory for cyber security and privacy.ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 50(2):1–37, 2017

    2017

  13. [13]

    Evolutionary games and applications: Fifty years of ‘the logic of animal conflict’ .Dynamic Games and Applications, 13(4):1035–1048, 2023

    Christian Hilbe, Maria Kleshnina, and Kateˇ rina Staˇ nkov´ a. Evolutionary games and applications: Fifty years of ‘the logic of animal conflict’ .Dynamic Games and Applications, 13(4):1035–1048, 2023

    2023

  14. [14]

    Strategic com- mitments shape collective cybersecurity under ai inequality.Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 210:118728, 2026

    Adeela Bashir, Zia Ush Shamszaman, Zhao Song, Matjaz Perc, and The Anh Han. Strategic com- mitments shape collective cybersecurity under ai inequality.Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 210:118728, 2026

    2026

  15. [15]

    Share and benefit: incentives for cyber threat intelligence sharing: T

    Tobias Reittinger, Johannes Grill, and G¨ unther Pernul. Share and benefit: incentives for cyber threat intelligence sharing: T. reittinger et al.International Journal of Information Security, 25(1):37, 2026

    2026

  16. [16]

    Understanding incentives for cybersecurity investments: Development and application of a typology

    Martijn Wessels, Puck van den Brink, Thijmen Verburgh, Beatrice Cadet, and Theo van Ruijven. Understanding incentives for cybersecurity investments: Development and application of a typology. Digital Business, 1(2):100014, 2021

    2021

  17. [17]

    New challenges in supply chain management: cybersecurity across the supply chain.International Journal of Production Research, 60(1):162–183, 2022

    Steven A Melnyk, Tobias Schoenherr, Cheri Speier-Pero, Chris Peters, Jeff F Chang, and Derek Friday. New challenges in supply chain management: cybersecurity across the supply chain.International Journal of Production Research, 60(1):162–183, 2022

    2022

  18. [18]

    Securing the digital supply chain: Cybersecurity best practices for logistics and shipping companies.World Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 5(1):026–030, 2024

    Agnes Clare Odimarha, Sodrudeen Abolore Ayodeji, and Emmanuel Adeyemi Abaku. Securing the digital supply chain: Cybersecurity best practices for logistics and shipping companies.World Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 5(1):026–030, 2024

    2024

  19. [19]

    Information systems for supply chain management: uncertainties, risks and cyber security.Procedia computer science, 149:65–70, 2019

    Andrii Boiko, Vira Shendryk, and Olha Boiko. Information systems for supply chain management: uncertainties, risks and cyber security.Procedia computer science, 149:65–70, 2019

    2019

  20. [20]

    Evolutionary dynamics of group interactions on structured popula- tions: a review.Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 10(80):20120997, 2013

    Gy¨ orgy Szolnoki and Matjaˇ z Perc. Evolutionary dynamics of group interactions on structured popula- tions: a review.Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 10(80):20120997, 2013

    2013

  21. [21]

    Calculating evolutionary dynamics in structured populations.PLoS computational biology, 5(12):e1000615, 2009

    Charles G Nathanson, Corina E Tarnita, and Martin A Nowak. Calculating evolutionary dynamics in structured populations.PLoS computational biology, 5(12):e1000615, 2009

    2009

  22. [22]

    Evolutionary games on graphs.Physics reports, 446(4-6):97–216, 2007

    Gy¨ orgy Szab´ o and Gabor Fath. Evolutionary games on graphs.Physics reports, 446(4-6):97–216, 2007

    2007

  23. [23]

    Artificial intelligence development races in heterogeneous settings.Scientific Reports, 12(1):1723, 2022

    Theodor Cimpeanu, Francisco C Santos, Lu´ ıs Moniz Pereira, Tom Lenaerts, and The Anh Han. Artificial intelligence development races in heterogeneous settings.Scientific Reports, 12(1):1723, 2022

    2022

  24. [24]

    Evolutionary dynamics of variable games in structured populations.IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 2026

    Bin Pi, Minyu Feng, Liang-Jian Deng, Xiaojie Chen, and Attila Szolnoki. Evolutionary dynamics of variable games in structured populations.IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 2026

    2026

  25. [25]

    Aias: Ai-assisted cybersecurity platform to defend against adversarial ai attacks

    Georgios Petihakis, Aristeidis Farao, Panagiotis Bountakas, Athanasia Sabazioti, John Polley, and Christos Xenakis. Aias: Ai-assisted cybersecurity platform to defend against adversarial ai attacks. InProceedings of the 19th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, pages 1–7, 2024

    2024

  26. [26]

    Recent devel- opments in game-theory approaches for the detection and defense against advanced persistent threats (apts): a systematic review.Mathematics, 11(6):1353, 2023

    Mohd Nor Akmal Khalid, Amjed Ahmed Al-Kadhimi, and Manmeet Mahinderjit Singh. Recent devel- opments in game-theory approaches for the detection and defense against advanced persistent threats (apts): a systematic review.Mathematics, 11(6):1353, 2023. 14

    2023

  27. [27]

    A game theory based collaborative security detection method for internet of things systems.IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 13(6):1432–1445, 2018

    Hao Wu and Wei Wang. A game theory based collaborative security detection method for internet of things systems.IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 13(6):1432–1445, 2018

    2018

  28. [28]

    A game-theoretic approach to cross- layer security decision-making in industrial cyber-physical systems.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 67(3):2371–2379, 2019

    Kaixing Huang, Chunjie Zhou, Yuanqing Qin, and Weixun Tu. A game-theoretic approach to cross- layer security decision-making in industrial cyber-physical systems.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 67(3):2371–2379, 2019

    2019

  29. [29]

    A game-theoretic method for defending against advanced persistent threats in cyber systems.IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 18:1349–1364, 2022

    Lefeng Zhang, Tianqing Zhu, Farookh Khadeer Hussain, Dayong Ye, and Wanlei Zhou. A game-theoretic method for defending against advanced persistent threats in cyber systems.IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 18:1349–1364, 2022

    2022

  30. [30]

    On cyber risk management of blockchain networks: A game theoretic approach.IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 14(5):1492–1504, 2018

    Shaohan Feng, Wenbo Wang, Zehui Xiong, Dusit Niyato, Ping Wang, and Shaun Shuxun Wang. On cyber risk management of blockchain networks: A game theoretic approach.IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 14(5):1492–1504, 2018

    2018

  31. [31]

    Game theory-based resilient control of time-varying cyber-physical systems under hybrid attacks.IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineer- ing, 23:7164–7175, 2026

    Shan Liu, Xueyu Cao, Jian Cen, and Sheng Yu. Game theory-based resilient control of time-varying cyber-physical systems under hybrid attacks.IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineer- ing, 23:7164–7175, 2026

    2026

  32. [32]

    Network reciprocity turns cheap talk into a force for cooperation.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 617:112303, 2026

    Zhao Song, Chen Shen, and The Anh Han. Network reciprocity turns cheap talk into a force for cooperation.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 617:112303, 2026

    2026

  33. [33]

    Evolutionary prisoner’s dilemma game on a square lattice.Physical Review E, 58(1):69, 1998

    Gy¨ orgy Szab´ o and Csaba T˝ oke. Evolutionary prisoner’s dilemma game on a square lattice.Physical Review E, 58(1):69, 1998

    1998

  34. [34]

    Five rules for the evolution of cooperation.science, 314(5805):1560–1563, 2006

    Martin A Nowak. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation.science, 314(5805):1560–1563, 2006

    2006

  35. [35]

    Statistical physics of human cooperation.Physics Reports, 687:1–51, 2017

    Matjaˇ z Perc, Jillian J Jordan, David G Rand, Zhen Wang, Stefano Boccaletti, and Attila Szolnoki. Statistical physics of human cooperation.Physics Reports, 687:1–51, 2017

    2017

  36. [36]

    Cooperation in regular lattices.Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 164:112744, 2022

    Lucas S Flores, Marco A Amaral, Mendeli H Vainstein, and Heitor CM Fernandes. Cooperation in regular lattices.Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 164:112744, 2022

    2022

  37. [37]

    Fostering cooperation in structured populations through local and global interference strategies

    The Anh Han, Simon Lynch, Long Tran-Thanh, and Francisco C Santos. Fostering cooperation in structured populations through local and global interference strategies. In27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the 23rd European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 289–295. IJCAI, 2018

    2018

  38. [38]

    Mixing protocols in the public goods game.Physical Review E, 102(3):032310, 2020

    Maja Duh, Marko Gosak, and Matjaˇ z Perc. Mixing protocols in the public goods game.Physical Review E, 102(3):032310, 2020

    2020

  39. [39]

    Evolutionary dynamics of social dilemmas in structured heterogeneous populations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(9):3490– 3494, 2006

    Francisco C Santos, Jorge M Pacheco, and Tom Lenaerts. Evolutionary dynamics of social dilemmas in structured heterogeneous populations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(9):3490– 3494, 2006

    2006

  40. [40]

    Hacking the hackers: Offensive security strategies in modern cyber defense.Journal of Data and Digital Innovation (JDDI), 2(2):126–132, 2025

    Zillay Huma. Hacking the hackers: Offensive security strategies in modern cyber defense.Journal of Data and Digital Innovation (JDDI), 2(2):126–132, 2025

    2025

  41. [41]

    Cyber posturing and the offense-defense balance.Contemporary Security Policy, 34(1):40– 63, 2013

    Ilai Saltzman. Cyber posturing and the offense-defense balance.Contemporary Security Policy, 34(1):40– 63, 2013

    2013

  42. [42]

    The ai shield and red ai framework: Machine learning solutions for cyber threat intelligence (cti)

    Sonu Kumar, Aarti Hans, et al. The ai shield and red ai framework: Machine learning solutions for cyber threat intelligence (cti). In2024 International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Cybersecurity (ISCS), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  43. [43]

    Stochastic dynamics of invasion and fixation

    Arne Traulsen, Martin A Nowak, and Jorge M Pacheco. Stochastic dynamics of invasion and fixation. Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 74(1):011909, 2006. 15

    2006